The NamePros Moderation sucks...

[bmugford]

Your post in the thread See you around was deleted. Reason: Please stay on topic. We will have to issue warnings and/or restrictions if you continue not listening to us. You are unnecessarily creating problems

Here, now this is on topic..

More and more quality members are leaving NamePros due to your actions.

Quit worrying about avatars and worry about the real issues such as members who have suspended 5+ times and are still here, members who have threatened others twice and are still here, people infracted multiple times for self-promotion still here, people just adding no value intentionally trolling and causing strife still here..

Brad

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

“Sucks”?

We would have expected a more professional and constructive criticism from you.

Disappointing.

As we said, NamePros isn’t for everyone, but if we are making mistakes, then please always tell us what we should be doing instead.

We will absolutely listen, be thankful for you sharing, and appreciate your time.

 

[bmugford]

It's fine. I would have expected better moderation from you.
I guess we are both disappointed.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

As we said, NamePros isn’t for everyone, but if we are making mistakes, then please always tell us what we should be doing instead.

We will absolutely listen, be thankful for you sharing, and appreciate your time.

Well to start with...

You let a person still be a member of NamePros who has been involved with (2) separate incidents of issuing threats to people. Should I go on?

What is more unprofessional - an avatar, or threatening people twice?

Brad

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

We are doing our best. We’re sorry that our best hasn’t met your expectations yet but we hope it will soon.

 

[Lord Antares]

Looks like mod team is on their period today.

 

[bmugford]

Just to clarify what I am talking about it was a member who threatened a Wikipedia moderator over their Epik article. This was the second time this member had been involved with threatening others.

That lead her to tweet this -

Molly White
@molly0xFFF
Apr 18
Hey @NamePros, that guy who threatened to show up at my house has now started a http://Change.org petition full of provably false (not to mention libelous) claims against me. Why is your mod team's only action to move the thread to a different forum?

I rarely use Twitter, but thought it was important enough to respond to.

I stand by my response below -

DataCube.com
@datacubecom
Apr 18
Replying to
@molly0xFFF
and
@namepros
Hi Molly, I am a long time NamePros member and I am embarrassed by their lack of action on this. The OP has been issued infractions for making other threats in the past. Just know that many people find this behavior, and NamePros response completely unacceptable

You want to talk about "unprofessional". That is the definition of it.

Brad

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

Just to clarify what I am talking about it was a member who threatened a Wikipedia moderator over their Epik article. This was the second time this member had been involved with threatening others.

That lead her to tweet this -

Molly White
@molly0xFFF
Apr 18
Hey @NamePros, that guy who threatened to show up at my house has now started a http://Change.org petition full of provably false (not to mention libelous) claims against me. Why is your mod team's only action to move the thread to a different forum?

I rarely use Twitter, but thought it was important enough to respond to.

I stand by my response below -

DataCube.com
@datacubecom
Apr 18
Replying to
@molly0xFFF
and
@namepros
Hi Molly, I am a long time NamePros member and I am embarrassed by their lack of action on this. The OP has been issued infractions for making other threats in the past. Just know that many people find this behavior, and NamePros response completely unacceptable

You want to talk about "unprofessional". That is the definition of it.

Brad

Here's the thread on that:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/ban-member-barybadrinath.1186257/

What are your thoughts on @.X.'s post?

Fuck with me and not only will I pull my gold membership, I will quit this forum and I will find out who the fucking prick is and talk to the necessary person , try me

Please share.

 

[bmugford]

What are your thoughts on @.X.'s post?

​

Please share.

I will leave their thoughts, since their account is restricted.

From .X. -

Yep, I said that, and I meant it too. This mod insists on inciting people when everyone is telling them they are wrong. I pay them monthly. I was telling them I will stop paying them and contact the necessary person to report them to.

So, maybe it seems like a misunderstanding. I don't know.

Regardless, the other guy has 2 strikes. The 2nd strike is the main issue I have.
He didn't learn the first time.

NamePros is also the one in power. I am not.

Again, why is he 85%-100% restricted when the person who has done this twice is 15%-30%?

Brad

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

So, maybe it seems like a misunderstanding. I don't know.

Good to know. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

Regardless, the other guy has 2 strikes. The 2nd strike is the main issue I have.
He didn't learn the first time.

How much time needs to pass in-between these strikes for them to count as distinct strikes?

• If the same member does it more than once in the same day, is that two strikes?
• If the same member does it again after they're warned, is that two strikes?

Genuinely interested in your opinion.

 

[Peak.Domains]

I just hope this strong path towards professionalism also leads to permanent bans instead of soft warnings for things we see almost daily here, that are completely unrelated to domain names, like wild and dangerous conspiracy theories, light or blatant xenophobia, targeted harassment, inciting witch-hunts, extreme and dangerous political views, violent rhetoric, etc.

Very fringe, extremist, just very nasty stuff that shouldn't be associated with the largest community for an industry that's already looked-down on by pretty much every other corner of online business/entrepreneurship, except maybe spammers and blackmarket pharmacists.

All of this makes the forum look bad and so much worse than unprofessional, it's even been brought up on other platforms, NamePros is getting a bit of a "reputation" around the web and I hate to see it. Is this the place to talk about the aforementioned things, further staining the reputation of domain investing as a whole, or is it a place to have professional conversations about domain names? We're getting mixed signals.

When someone is doing any of the above, and it gets reported, and the response is "It's just part of a heated debate", that's such a cop-out - why are some of those topics even up for debate here? How is a professional domain community an okay place to debate those things? Why are we platforming heated debates that have nothing to do with domain investing if the goal is a professional platform to discuss domain investing? I mean, it's for pageviews, which is okay - every website wants traffic - but again, it sends mixed signals.

If you can take a stand against classic American cinematography that only 3% of users agree with, you can take a stand against real-world hatred being platformed here, a stand that goes beyond soft warnings or pawning it off as "heated debate". You'll get a lot of blow back for that too, but I promise that more than 3% of users will be on board (even though a lot of folks who are opposed to this type of content being platformed here have already packed their bags and left.) It literally pushes away the most professional users, because they're the ones who don't want to be associated with a place that platforms these types of content.

In response to the timing of strikes... the fact that the aforementioned user was even around to earn additional strikes, period, is a problem. Not the amount of time in between each strike.

 

[equity78]

I will leave their thoughts, since their account is restricted.

From .X. -

Yep, I said that, and I meant it too. This mod insists on inciting people when everyone is telling them they are wrong. I pay them monthly. I was telling them I will stop paying them and contact the necessary person to report them to.

So, maybe it seems like a misunderstanding. I don't know.

Regardless, the other guy has 2 strikes. The 2nd strike is the main issue I have.
He didn't learn the first time.

NamePros is also the one in power. I am not.

Again, why is he 85%-100% restricted when the person who has done this twice is 15%-30%?

Brad

How did .X get into this Brad, I missed that, why did he get so amped up in this? Like were there other posts before he started dropping the f word?

 

[Joe N]

I just hope this strong path towards professionalism also leads to permanent bans instead of soft warnings for things we see almost daily here, that are completely unrelated to domain names, like wild and dangerous conspiracy theories, light or blatant xenophobia, targeted harassment, inciting witch-hunts, extreme and dangerous political views, violent rhetoric, etc.

Very fringe, extremist, just very nasty stuff that shouldn't be associated with the largest community for an industry that's already looked-down on by pretty much every other corner of online business/entrepreneurship, except maybe spammers and blackmarket pharmacists.

All of this makes the forum look bad and so much worse than unprofessional, it's even been brought up on other platforms, NamePros is getting a bit of a "reputation" around the web and I hate to see it. Is this the place to talk about the aforementioned things, further staining the reputation of domain investing as a whole, or is it a place to have professional conversations about domain names? We're getting mixed signals.

When someone is doing any of the above, and it gets reported, and the response is "It's just part of a heated debate", that's such a cop-out - why are some of those topics even up for debate here? How is a professional domain community an okay place to debate those things? Why are we platforming heated debates that have nothing to do with domain investing if the goal is a professional platform to discuss domain investing? I mean, it's for pageviews, which is okay - every website wants traffic - but again, it sends mixed signals.

If you can take a stand against classic American cinematography that only 3% of users agree with, you can take a stand against real-world hatred being platformed here, a stand that goes beyond soft warnings or pawning it off as "heated debate". You'll get a lot of blow back for that too, but I promise that more than 3% of users will be on board (even though a lot of folks who are opposed to this type of content being platformed here have already packed their bags and left.) It literally pushes away the most professional users, because they're the ones who don't want to be associated with a place that platforms these types of content.

In response to the timing of strikes... the fact that the aforementioned user was even around to earn additional strikes, period, is a problem. Not the amount of time in between each strike.

I agree with a lot of this. I've had multiple reports fall on deaf ears because a personal insult directed at me was "just part of a heated debate".

 

[bmugford]

How did .X get into this Brad, I missed that, why did he get so amped up in this? Like were there other posts before he started dropping the f word?

I don't really know honestly. I missed much of that also.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

How much time needs to pass in-between these strikes for them to count as distinct strikes?

• If the same member does it more than once in the same day, is that two strikes?
• If the same member does it again after they're warned, is that two strikes?

Genuinely interested in your opinion.

I personally don't feel like obvious threats should have a statute of limitations.

In that specific case the first warning came after blatant threats in a thread that also included racism and other hateful language. They were threats that could not be dismissed as a misunderstanding.

It caused a huge uproar on NamePros when the mods were not around for many hours to take action.
The actions were so egregious in that case I think a permanent ban was worthy.

Raymond wrote the following about it -

Raymond Hackney says

January 22, 2020 at 8:10 pm

Well I will agree the lack of mods is a joke. There was a disgusting thread that sat there for more than 12 hours as there were no mods on, no forum can have 12 minutes without a mod online. Especially one that gets money from members and advertisers.

NamePros allowed him to come back. I think at that point you have to have zero tolerance for future incidents that involve threats. I don't think you can give someone the benefit of the doubt that was involved in such blatant threats in the past.

Brad

 

[Samer]

When @Keith was 85-100-% restricted for melatonin debacle, it was temporary. I’m sure @Riz M. @.X. @Mary Muse be un 85-100%

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

Brad, you agreed with the post that contains this opinion:

In response to the timing of strikes... the fact that the aforementioned user was even around to earn additional strikes, period, is a problem. Not the amount of time in between each strike.

Why are your expectations different for @.X.?

It seems like a double standard.

 

[Peak.Domains]

I'll let @bmugford speak for himself..

But oh boy.

If "liking" a post suggests that someone agrees with every single word...

Well, there were "likes" on some of the posts mentioned above that got users in trouble/restricted for bad behavior, surely it's unprofessional to endorse those posts with likes, too?

If posting something unprofessional gets someone in trouble, then why wouldn't "liking" something unprofessional be a reason to hold the liker accountable too? Is that the road we want to go down, Like-Policing?

You're holding Brad accountable for something he didn't even say. He liked a post with 409 words, and you cherry picked 33 of them. Feels like you're really starting to grasp at straws with this one.

For example: There are likes and agrees on the original post in this thread, that doesn't mean all of those users are saying you "suck", but if you don't call them out for endorsing that language the same way you called out Brad for saying it - and for liking my post - feels like a double standard to me, right?

Another example. There were a lot of people cheerleading targeted harassment, slander, and bullying here a week ago, do we want to look at everyone who "liked" the content that got a user restricted? Why wouldn't we, if we're trying to avoid double standards?

Obviously, this is devil's advocate, because I don't think Brad should be held accountable for my words, nor do I think the people who liked the original post should be held accountable for Brad's words.

"You agreed with a post that contains this opinion" like come on.

I respect that you're getting a lot of criticism lately, some of it is justified (I'm sure you'd agree) and a lot of it is just dogpiling and not warranted at all. A lot of the criticism you get isn't fair or constructive. I don't differentiate between the mod accounts, and I'm sure most users don't, so it's probably tough to come into work and have to take accountability for someone else's decisions on a daily basis. I have a lot of empathy for that.

As users, we are responsible for our own words - as mods, you're responsible for the words and actions of every other mod and your own. That's tough, I recognize this. You have to defend positions and actions that you didn't even take, and that you may or may not agree with.

Overall, I think the mods here do a great job so I'm not a part of that dogpile at all. I've had respectful interactions with the moderation team, and I've had interactions where you're 100% off-base. That's to be expected, you can get 999 decisions spot-on behind the scenes, but the 1 misstep turns into a 20 page thread. I don't envy your position here, and I appreciate the work the mods do overall...

But please talk to Brad about his own opinions and the things HE says (he doesn't keep them a secret), don't cherry-pick my words to use against him.

 

[Keith]

Your post in the thread See you around was deleted. Reason: Please stay on topic. We will have to issue warnings and/or restrictions if you continue not listening to us. You are unnecessarily creating problems

Here, now this is on topic..

More and more quality members are leaving NamePros due to your actions.

Quit worrying about avatars and worry about the real issues such as members who have suspended 5+ times and are still here, members who have threatened others twice and are still here, people infracted multiple times for self-promotion still here, people just adding no value intentionally trolling and causing strife still here..

Brad

You’re about to get a restriction. It happened to me earlier this week. At least I know I’m not alone on how I feel.

 

[Keith]

We are doing our best. We’re sorry that our best hasn’t met your expectations yet but we hope it will soon.

You’ve got to focus less on pictures and more on the business end.

 

[Keith]

When @Keith was 85-100-% restricted for melatonin

I have an attorney in the state of the domain owner looking into this. We absolutely believe that an asking price is in fact a buy it now offering.

 

[bmugford]

Brad, you agreed with the post that contains this opinion:

​

Why are your expectations different for @.X.?

It seems like a double standard.

I responded above. Which part are you confused by exactly?

This is nothing but an obvious deflection from a party in power to try and defend their (undefendable) actions.

Brad

 

[johnn]

It's very wrong the way the forum is running now.
No respect to members and the decisions are dictated by 2 or 3 mods who think they are God.
All the senior members will eventually leave and the forum will be the playground soon.
Either it's my way or no way.
You don't need to waste any more time Brad.

 

[Joe N]

Enough with the empty threats, people. Either close your account or become part of the constructive solution. Complaining is too easy.